B Cos We Care for Our Community Fka Assistance League of Colorado Spring

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237029329
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Colorado Springs, CO, USA
Phone
7194656576
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$466,805
Expenses
$440,931
Assets
$1,805,572
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUZANNE DISCENZA (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SUZANNE DISCENZA (PRESIDENT)
  • DIANE BLACK (VP PHILANTROPIC PROGRAMS)
  • KATHY SHARKEY (VP MEMBERSHIP)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

B-cos we care for our community of Colorado springs is a nonprofit, all volunteer, philanthropic organization dedicated to improving the well-being of the children and families of el paso county.

What it reported doing in 2024

Operation beyond the classroom is b-cos we care for our community largest philantrophic program. Schools in el paso county educating students who live in lower economic communities are provided with coats, hoodies, sweatshirts and pants, socks underwear, along with shoe gift cards. Counselors/liasons are then able to distribute, as needed, these items to their students throughout the school year when the need arises. We estimate 2,000 students were served for the 2023-2024 academic year, at 82 schools in el paso county. A school staff member can also contact this program when a child is in need of emergency clothing. A committee member will meet the family and purchase the clothing that is needed.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 62% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.6%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 84.6%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.5%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.09; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.6% of revenue deployed · 84.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $373K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 23 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 39/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.